Written by Roger Buchanan   

The name Pro-Life has all the right connotations. What a name! The words reach out calling us to affirm our highest ideals. What could be more moral or righteous than saving the life of the innocent and defenseless? Moreover what could be more evil than pleasure seeking unscrupulous women who kill unborn children? But there is more to this national movement that emanated from the Christian religion. Pro-Life has become a crusade.

The Pro-Life crusade gathers momentum, encouraging authoritarianism and new levels of violence inspiring fear among those who honor liberty. Their systematic and national influence on State legislatures has led to oppressive campaigns encouraging strident State prosecutors to harass women and with new regulations radically limiting what remains of legal abortions. The broad sweep of this crusade has distorted history, corrupted both language and religion, altered the meaning of morality, undermined democratic respect for diversity, encouraged radicalism, changed woman’s lives while ignoring critical realities all with a crude modern mechanistic view of God that is embraced by only a few; all at a significant threat to the values and meaning of being an American. The Pro-Life crusade has become America’s Taliban, alien to both Christians and Jews.

Pro-life is the gateway drug of addiction to an extreme agenda that is now a threat to established Supreme Court president establishing both a much valued right to privacy and a limited right to abortion.

America as a society, together with Christian and Jews as religious communities must now confront this mass deception. If left unchallenged, pro-life threatens the very meaning of what it means to be an American and redefines what it means to be a Christian. Jews and other religious minority faith positions are likewise made uncomfortable, never amused by the unexpected perpetrated by the righteous hegemony and dished out to the uninitiated. Our identities as a culture and as authentic varied communities of faith are at stake.

The Corruption of Language

Consider the pro-life assault on language. In our language, and surely in all others, the noun for a living person is not the same word as used to describe a being in the womb. Normally we use the word child to designate the birth of a new member of the human race. Likewise we use the word fetus to describe that, which will become a child at birth. Since a being is not a child until birth there is no such thing as an unborn child. But this new entity the “unborn child,” a term at odds with itself, is the language of the Pro-Life crusade. They have discontinued the time-honored language of biology that describe each stages of human development from fertility to birth. There is no distinction made between a fertilized egg, a zygote, a viable and a non-viable fetus. In this new pro-life lectionary any fertilized human egg regardless of its maturity or development is an unborn child. Moreover, as they see it, the State has a vital interest in every human egg from the moment of conception.

Why, what purpose does this new language serve? The answer is obvious. It makes abortion sound horrendous by describing it as the killing of an innocent unborn child. The new language construction changes our national life. If the innocent unborn child is not given the protection of the mother then the State in the name of morality must intervene to save the innocent. Justice must be administered to the perpetrator of violence toward the unborn child, both the mother and the physician. By arbitrarily changing its definition to suit its political agenda the pro-life movement makes it easier to demonize an abortion, label the mother as a murderer, and paint the attending physician as an exterminator of the innocent.

But the original language has a different moral tone. A fetus may be aborted but by definition a child can never be aborted. An “innocent unprotected child” is not murdered when the mother has an abortion for it is a fetus and not an “innocent unprotected child.” An innocent unprotected child comes into being at birth, and at that moment it deserves maternal love and society’s legal protection.

It is worth noting that the 1973 Roe Vs. Wade Supreme Court decision paved the way for a change of language. It dropped out the traditional word "quickening" (the time when a mother first feels movement in the womb) and added the modern concept of "viability" (the time when the fetus is most likely to survive outside the womb). The Court went on to declare that the State had a vital interest in the fetus at the time of viability. They did not name the viable fetus as a child but they treated it as if it were a child. The door leading toward a change in language was opened.

Historical Distortions

However, Pro-life advocates make several historical errors. They would have us believe that their position is a time-honored Christian declaration, one that all believers should just naturally endorse if they are true believers. But this position is history distorted. The early Christians, before the fall of the Roman Empire, rarely discussed abortion. With the exception of the ancient Pythagoreans, a pre-Christian Greek cult, there was a relaxed attitude toward abortion in both ancient Greece and Rome. In ancient writing where there is a prohibition against abortion it is in the interest of giving the father his rightful heir.
There was some concern for the health of the mother but in antiquity the idea of protecting the unborn would have been a strange concept. For our early spiritual ancestors the unborn, particularly before quickening, was the property of the mother. The scholarly awakening that ushered in the Middle Age did not bring about a change in attitude toward pregnancy. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the Doctor Angelicus and author of Summa Theologica, was the masterful theologian who did so much to shape modern Catholicism. He did not entertain the concept of the fetus as an unborn child. In classical theology the fetus was never elevated to the position of a person in need of protection and/or salvation.

When Catholics and Protestants went after each other in the 16th century Protestant Reformation, celibacy was an issue, with Catholics favoring and Protestants rejecting. In fact the rejection of celibacy may be the only issue that all Protestants agree on. Interestingly enough during this period of heightened theological debate on almost everything including the sexual life of the clergy, abortion never entered the conversation.

Near silence on abortion remained the case during the dominance of English Common Law. Indeed it was relatively easy, with risks involved, to secure an abortion during America’s Colonial Period. The church was largely silent until just before the Roe decision when the Catholic Church lost their case to outlaw birth control (Griswold vs. Connecticut, 1966).

Pro-Life advocates would have us believe that the 1973 Roe decision went against them by reversing a long held position of the church. But, as just examined, the church was not a player in early discussion. This silence prevailed until the modern era. Neither Protestants nor Catholics played a part during the late nineteenth century when an effort to criminalize abortion made its way into the laws of the States. Church leaders did not oppose abortion and no one stood up to protect the life of the fetus. Christians had not yet invented the concept of the innocent unborn child in need of protection. In point of fact it was not the church or the clergy who favored the criminalization of abortion. In the 19th century abortion was a risky procedure that put women at risk and the newly assertive medical profession wanted no part of this practice. Abortion was outlawed, with most states incorporating statements about protecting the life and health of the mother. However the main motivation behind the criminalization of abortion was to protect and save, not the fetus, but the reputation of member of the newly emerging American Medical Association.

The pro-life movement does not have roots in church history, the words of scripture, theology, or in evolving Western thought. It is a very modern post Second World War development.

Facts of life Ignored

Those who oppose abortion would have us understand that there is really no need for an abortion if everyone just practiced readily available birth control or yielded to Divine Will. That is a strange pro-life position for they also oppose the teaching of birth control, or, as in the case of the Catholic Church, the practice of birth control outside the rhythm method. They believe that for true believers all conception is good and the will of God. Abortion is a mean-spirited human endeavor, a sinful scheme to thwart the will of the Almighty.

The pro-life advocates fail to acknowledge that abortion plays a role in human life apart from the failure to take responsibility for birth control. Consider some other realities. Birth control can fail. Even the most responsible person living by the anti-conception rules can be faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Also, youth can become pregnant, some as young as pre-teen before anyone is even suspicious that they are sexually active and in need of birth control information and services. Additionally there are unfortunate circumstances, hard to acknowledge nonetheless they happen. For example, a married woman is anticipating an additional child in her family, becomes pregnant, and then is diagnosed with a terminal illness, or faces the unexpected loss of her husband’s job, life or love. The question here is, who will decide on the outcome of a questionable or troublesome pregnancy? Is the decision to termination a pregnancy decided by the State or by the expected mother aided by her family and physician? Will the State decide by law that a 13 year old girl will be forced to go forward with a life threatening and emotionally destructive pregnancy?

There are other serious matters that the pro-life people, in their zeal to end all abortions, fail to take into consideration. A pregnancy is not always a simple and safe event. New medical technology often enables the expectant mother’s physician to detect Defects occur that require the removal (abortion) of the fetus to save the life of the mother. Here the pro-life movement is divided. Some are strictly against all abortions while others will yield to save the life of the mother. But the concession is an uneasy one. The fear being that to yield on one case is to open a dreadful door allowing abortions for an ever-expanding list of less dramatic cases.

Consider also the Rubella (German measles) epidemic of 1964-65 when there were 12.5 million cases reported. If a pregnant woman acquired Rubella her fetus was almost certain to have multiple birth defects. Or consider the use of a doctor prescribed drug that turns out to be destructive to the fetus if the mother takes the drug during pregnancy. Such was the case with the drug Thalidomide. During the 1960s Thalidomide was commonly prescribed for morning sickness. It was eventually discovered that babies born to these mothers had missing limbs, or ear and eye defects along with mental retardation. Once this connection was made women who were then pregnant and taking Thalidomide faced a frightening reality. The question for these expectant mothers is the same as that raised above. Is she free to make a decision about abortion or has the pro-life movement persuaded the State to take away that option and thus compel every woman to carry her questionable pregnancy to term? Surely it is an act of State-created cruelty to force a woman to give birth to a very defective human being whose quality of life is severely compromised or who may live for only a short period of time.

Thalidomide and Rubella are largely forgotten today but they were on the minds of the public in the early 70ies when nine Supreme Court justices sat down to overthrow the Texas anti-abortion law in their landmark decision of Roe Vs. Wade. To be sure the risks associated with Thalidomide and Rubella are largely over but they are a reminder that pregnancy is a fragile time of life and that some new disease or some severe side effect of a new prescription drug may once again prompt the rallying cry to give women their full human dignity and the American freedom to make the ultimate decision about the rights and viability of their fetus.

It is worth noting that at the time of the Roe decision, pro-life popularity was significantly less than it is today. The elected officials defending the Texas Statute were immediately turned out of office as the Roe case progressed. In the end, attorneys representing the State admitted that they were busy job hunting and thus distracted from their defense of a nineteenth century Texas’s anti-abortion law.

Turning morality into a State monopoly

The pro-life movement makes a profound change in what it means to be a freedom loving American who embraces the unalienable liberties championed by the Declaration of Independence. The pro-life position is consistent with a dictatorial form of government but not that of a democracy. We have fought too many wars and sacrificed too many lives to simply sit back and allow the unjustified outlawing of anyone’s freedom to make profound moral decisions.

To be sure the State has police powers to limit citizen behavior. Persons have the right to bear arms but not armed robbery. Industry has certain rights but the right to pollute the environment is rightly regulated by the State. When the State establishes limits to freedom the political debate is framed in terms of the public good. But the pro-life movement has never established the public good that is achieved by overriding the moral and deeply personal decision made by a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy.

The pro-life argument, using their peculiar definitions, defends the State’s moral obligation to protect the innocent unborn by prohibiting abortion. But the mother also has the power to protect her innocent unborn. The question becomes one of public good. If the pro-life advocates have their way we will then be asking what public good is served when the Sate has monopoly power to overturn the judgment of the mother? At this point the pro-life argument is bankrupt. There is no public good when a woman’s life is profoundly changed against her best interest. There is no public good when an unwanted or deformed child is brought into the world. There is no public good when the State knows better than the mother as to what is in the best interest of her fetus. There is no public good when a woman risks her health and possibly her life to bring to term a fetus that has died of whose health is compromised.

Deep into the heart of this issue is the definition of freedom in America. And deep into the heart of this issue is the definition of what it means to be human and make moral decisions amid complex circumstances. In the name of freedom, liberty and democracy and in the name of what it means to be a full human being we grant to the mother and not to the state the power to determine what is in the best interest of the fetus. Reproduction and decisions about reproduction is the prerogative of motherhood and not Statehood.

For those who practice religion there is a theological aspect of this discussion. If a woman believes that God is calling her to terminate a pregnancy, should she not be granted the freedom of her religion? No public good is secured by placing women in the position of choosing between the laws of God and the laws of the State.

The Corruption of Christianity

The Pro-Life movement may be regarded as a corruption of Christianity in several important respects. This statement is a strong repudiation of clergy and religious from well-established Christian organizations and churches. The charge of corruption is indeed a harsh criticism for a movement that presents itself as authentic and moral Christianity. A close look at the issue of authentic Christianity is called for.

A core belief for both Christians and Jews is a belief in one God. Moreover this deity is a jealous God and does not accept competition. “Thou shall have not other gods before me!” The biblical witness is that of God as holy and sacred, monotheistic and not made in our image. In the Christian religion the sovereignty of God is expressed as the Lordship of Christ.

The Biblical declaration of radical monotheism, normative for both Christian and Jews is told in several references not the least of which is the story of the Golden Calf. In this dramatic incident orchestrated by Moses, God cannot be contained in an artifact, construct or abstraction, and no display of human skill can be elevated to represent the deity. There is but one absolute, one God. The golden calf as a display of skill and craftsmanship cannot be given the adoration that belongs to God and God alone.

As a violation of this treatise the Pro-Life movement elevates the fetus to that of an absolute value, the Golden Calf, with everything else as secondary. Compassion toward women and the circumstances of their lives are set aside in the presence of a fetus. The fetus is primary. The mother’s health, age and circumstances are secondary. The teachings of Moses are violated. In Christian terms the lordship of Christ and the compassion Christ demonstrated are now secondary and subservient to the well being of the fetus and the fetus only. Consequently it can be asserted that at the core of Pro-Life, a primal focus on a woman’s circumstances has been replaced with a belief in the lordship of the fetus. This reversal of values in the Pro-Life position amounts to nothing less than a fundamental corruption of both Judaism and Christianity.

The Pro-Life crusade and rapid accent to secular power is another challenge to historic Christianity. In the past when the Church has had to deal with the rise of foreign beliefs it has utilized a complex structure of discussion and debate ending with a new definition of orthodoxy. In 325 the Bishops of the Church gathered in Nicaea, condemned Arius and produced the Nicene Creed. This critical review process continued through the centuries. The 19th ecumenical council, the Council of Trent, confronted the Protestant heresy and lasted from 1545 to 1563. There have been other Councils called by the Vatican, most notably the liberal voice of Vatican II. Protestants have their World Council of Churches. Both Catholics and Protestants have taken significant steps searching for agreement and a definition of Christianity. However the Pro-Life movement has avoided a historically grounded critical review that would place its views within a larger contest. As such it lacks the credibility and credentials for calling itself Christian.

Pro-Life’s began as a belief articulated by members of the clergy and the religious as respected leaders of established Christian organizations. These leaders, as insiders, adopted views that were not held up for critical review. Self-selected religious leaders made pronouncements and declarations without the benefits of debate. They did not adhere to the respected Christian disciplines of discernment, an essential discipline for the promulgation of consensual Christian beliefs. The Pro-Life movement did not grow out of or benefit from the Councils of the Church or an ecumenical gathering. This movement is the product of a self-selected few attempting to speak for all good and true Christians with a view to be imposed on all America. They did not welcome outside voices or contrary considerations. Consequently they produced a rigid orthodoxy chiseled in stone, custom made for the political process with no tolerance for contrary opinions. If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, termination of that pregnancy is not an option regardless of the circumstances. There may be love and compassion within the Pro-Life community but this love is conditional and only available under the condition that the pregnancy will not be willfully terminated. Moreover this is a movement that is more of a crusade imposing its belief and faith position on the whole culture regardless of the views held by others.

Christianity, consistent with its Jewish roots, affirms one God, a divine presence that organizes the believer’s views and understandings of the world. In Christian theology Christ is king. But in the Pro-Life movement the fetus is lord, the fetus is king. The Pro-Life believer organizes all of life, all morality, all politics and personal decision-making so as to enhance the lordship of the fetus. This posture is a corruption of Christianity.

The Pro-Life dogmas organized around the lordship of the fetus without regard for the woman’s circumstances have a parallel in the roots of Christianity. Jesus confronted the dogmatic legalisms of the Pharisees and the Sadducees and found their position lacking in compassion for the circumstances of the individual. Jesus challenged the dogmatic legal structure. Moreover when he called others to follow him they too had to change their priorities. The law was no longer the highest authority. Followers of this teacher had to commit themselves to a compassion and love of others, particularly those who were the victims of a harsh and cruel world. Understanding of and compassion for others, known now as the law of love, replaced the ritual laws of his culture. By taking this radical step that focused on the plight of the individual Jesus defined what later became know as Christianity. By contrast, the Pro-Life movement can not claim to be Christian for it represents a regression back to the mentality that Jesus repudiated, a mentality that makes the law supreme (in this case the law to prohibit abortion). In the presence of an abortion consideration the circumstances of those involved are not the supreme consideration but rather an inconvenience to be dismissed with pious assurances.

In the Christian community if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy she has a right to expect a discussion of her condition within the context of the Lordship of Christ and the commandment to love one another. Her fears, health, life circumstances, integrity as a person, and her sense of God’s will for her life can all be respected within the context of a loving and caring Christian community. Abortion is not taboo and is a consideration within the context of her faith community.

Pro-Life’s Strange Theology

Pro-Life believers have a strange and mechanistic belief about God, shared by very few. They are free to have this belief, of course, but not free to impose the implications of their belief on all society. This mechanistic belief is straightforward. It states that when sperm is in the vicinity of an unfertilized egg, the matter can amount to nothing or God can intervene and cause one of the sperm to do its thing and thus begin a new human being. The biology is straightforward but pro-life adds a theological twist. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. In this theology abortion is an act of defiance against the will of God. In this respect a woman has only one choice and that is to passively accept and to nourish that what God has determined to be in her best interest.

This mechanistic belief is not consistently endorsed and is too simplistic to be widely adopted. Few would claim that the fertilization of an egg is any more or any less an accomplishment of God than, for example, the awesome power of a lung cell to remove carbon dioxide from blood and then nurture blood with oxygen. And few people would be unwilling to modify their nutrition, life style or medicine with the claim that to do so would modify or nullify the will of God. So why is it that we can eat right or take medicine to modify our well being and change the normal outcome of a biological process but when it comes to a fertilized egg it is not permissible to take action that will change the biological outcome? Why is it that we can terminate a cancer cell or an infection in the name of our well being but not a fertilized egg? If the removal of a fertilized egg is murder then what do we call the countless ways in which our life style can kill off or cause illness to a vital biological process?

In practice we do not believe in a theistic mechanistic biology as destiny. Few people are willing to have an endless number of pregnancies believing that each one is the will of God. Few people are willing to live with a biological defect that can be corrected by asserting that the defect is God’s handiwork and is thus not to be altered. Obviously, most people are willing to wear glasses to correct a vision defect without spending a lot of time blaming God for making a mistake.

Surely, to be human and to be responsible is to take charge and protect and preserve all of our biological process that impacts our well being and to do so to the best of our ability. And if our religion so moves us to say so, we live and move and have our being by the grace and mercy of God.

Contrary to their assertions, Pro-Life does not have a monopoly on religious beliefs. There are those who reject the simplistic and theistic mechanisms embraced by the pro-life movement and do so with a profoundly religious sensitivity. They have a keen sense of both freedom and responsibility. While pro-life see the hand of God more or less exclusively in the act of fertilization, others acknowledge the sacred or the hand of God in the totality of moral decisions. Pregnant women make choices and use various criteria to make moral decisions that extend beyond the well being of her fertilized egg. With prayerful consideration, and her own spiritual guidance and that of her community she makes a decision as to what is in the best interest of herself, her family and the community.

The Corruption of Foreign Policy

When the Pro-Life crusade gets its hands on the United States Congress, the corruption of foreign policy soon follows. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong for everyone and most assuredly wrong for those, mostly poor, living in other countries who receive American financial aid. Nations have been denied our financial support even if the use their own funds to provide abortion services.

Most recently in a move initiated by Republican Connie Mack of Florida the “Mexico City Rule” worked its way through the House of Representatives. This rule prevents any US foreign assistance going to health providers which "promote or offer abortion services".

Class Warfare

When the Pro-Life crusade makes its presence felt at the State level, class warfare follows. The name of the game is not to outlaw abortion, a legal question settled by the US Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe Decision. The current strategy takes a clue from the Roe Decision and crafts restrictions that the State can impose on its abortion providers. In Pennsylvania and in other States both Houses of the General Assembly imposed new standards on abortion providers, unnecessary and impossible to meet. Consequently, while allowing abortion to remain legal, all or most all, existing providers are forced out of business. However this maneuver forces a 14th Amendment issue. Minorities and in particular low income minorities with limited access to transportation have an undue burden placed on them. They are unable to access the few remaining abortion facilities but those with the means to do so can secure an abortion. Consequently there will be no or almost no abortions for those with limited income – the poor. Those with financial resources are allowed their rights and privileges. By creating an undue burden on the poor, the Pro-Life crusade engages in class warfare.

The test of an undue burden needs highlighted. State laws and prosecutors must abide by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court which prohibit the States from regulating abortion in a way that places an undue burden on women. But the States are notorious in their disregard for this restraint when they craft regulations that serve no purpose other than to make abortion unavailable to women with limited resources. The Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Posner addressed the zeal of State Legislatures by writing “if a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue.” Hope Clinic, 195 F.3d, at 881.

Closing the Door to a Right of Privacy

Justice Blackmun wrote the Court’s opinion in Roe Vs. Wade. His discussion of privacy begins with the acknowledgement that there is no explicit Right to Privacy in the U.S. Constitution. He then goes on to describe how this concept evolved through a long history of Supreme Court decisions going back to 1891. The Justice concludes that the right of privacy that has evolved “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” However Blackmun adds that the right to privacy is not absolute. A woman’s right top privacy does not give her the unlimited right to terminate her pregnancy at any time that she pleases. The State may regulate this right, and indeed the court in the Roe decision does exactly that. At some undetermined point in the pregnancy the vital interest of the State progressively intervenes limiting the right to privacy.

Justice Blackmun hoped that the restrictions he incorporated made it clear that a woman is not free to have an abortion at will, for example past the point of viability. All but two of the other justices accepted his written opinion. But the extremists were not satisfied. There were death threats against the Justice, shots were fired into this house and bodyguards were assigned for his protection.

With the court’s restrictions in place, pro-life got some of what they wanted. The Roe decision was not a one-sided victory by those who opposed the criminalization of abortion. But a partial loaf is not good enough. Pro-Life advocates are not content with the court’s restrictions on the right to privacy. They want to overturn Roe. Consequently what is at stake is the very concept of a right to privacy. What will be left of that right if Roe is reversed? The leaders of pro-life do not answer this question, for it would be too explosive to reveal what is on their mind. It is certain that any restriction on this right will have profound consequences for the freedoms we have sought to establish as Americans. It is hard to imagine all the changes that will take place in our culture if this vital right is diminished or undermined. Surely further restrictions on the right to privacy are not in the national interest in a democratic society.

The Ultimate Assault on Women

The Pro-Life ultimate assault on woman is to deny a woman her right to life when her life can only be saved at the expense of the fetus. The Pro-Life crusade is adamant and will not yield to the well being of a women even in extreme circumstances when her life is at risk. The fetus remains lord.

This Pro-Life position is stated very clearly in Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Birth), an encyclical letter by Pope Paul VI, July 25, 1968. This Catholic document states that any “interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.”

An important Supreme Court case addressed this ultimate assault. The case, decided on June 28, 2000 was Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, et al, v. Carhart. This was a close call, decided by a 5 to 4 vote. Voting with the Court were two women Justices, Ginsburg and O Connor. For O Connor The Nebraska partial-birth abortion was declared unconstitutional because it lacked a health exception. She could not abide by the ultimate lordship of the fetus when the life of the mother was at stake. Ginsburg concurred and regarded the Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortions an undue burden on women.

America’s Taliban, opening the door to Authoritarian Violence

The rise of America’s Pro-Life movement from within the Christian tradition resembles the rise of the Taliban from within Islam. Both have a puritanical caliphate. Pro-Life will not tolerate a form of Christianity that embraces abortion. Similarly the Taliban will not tolerate other forms of Islam. Both movements scorn the presence of secular or pluralistic politics. Both groups distort history for their own advantage. They are both self-serving while deviating from prevailing law and practices.

Both Pro-Life and the Taliban are not shy when it comes time to use the power of the State to enforce their morality. Pro-Life now brags about state prosecutors and forms of punishment that persecute and attack women on charges related to miscarriage and the loss of fetal viability. The Taliban with all the blessings of the state impose restrictions on woman using religious police. As they gain political dominance both groups are alike in their use of authoritarian violence.

For Pro-Life there is a very simple logic in place. If the fetus is an unborn child, and if abortion is murder, then those who perform abortions are murderers and must be treated as such. It follows, for those who buy this script, that if the state does not do its duty and punish those who commit murder then it is up to vigilantes to do what has to be done in the name of the higher Pro-Life morality.

The history of this logic plays out in ways that are gruesome. Abortion doctors have been killed in cold blood, even while serving as an usher in church. But doctors are not the only ones in danger of being charged with engaging in a criminal act. The mother who has an abortion is also guilty. Additionally there is another class of murderers, namely the mothers who have a spontaneous miscarriage and then are charged with the crime of purposefully killing an unborn child. These criminal charges are becoming common in states that have passed laws inspired or written by the Pro-Life crusade. State prosecutors with a Pro-Life passion are scanning medical records in search of women who can be charged with murder. Women grieving over a miscarriage are at risk of joining those who have already been prosecuted. It is an alarming trend. The pro-life movement has pushed opened the door for the practice of authoritarian violence.

In 1776 Thomas Jefferson penned this preamble to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” But these ideals are not the goals of the pro-life crusade. As of 2010 the National Abortion Federation gives us these grim statistics. Rather than Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, among abortion providers there were 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, and 418 death threats. There have been 41 bombings of abortion facilities, 175 incidents of arson, 381 invasions, 1451 acts of vandalism, 2103 acts of trespass, 662 anthrax threats, 188 incidents of assault and battery, 523 cases of stalking, 14,661 pieces of hate mail, 653 death threats to clinic staff members, 153,899 picketers at abortion clinics, 764 incidents of clinic blockage and 33,834 arrests.

It may be worth noting that during the Clinton presidency there were 6 murders and 17 attempted murders of abortion doctors and 12 clinic bombings. But during the 8 years of the Bush administration there were no murders, no attempted murders and no bombings. But there was a dramatic decrease in abortions when Clinton was president and a dramatic upswing in the number of abortions during the Bush years. During the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassment calls to abortion clinics. But after only four months into the Obama administration there were 1401 harassment calls.

The 2010 election brought in a strong wave of Pro-Life governors and legislators. The full impacts of various pro-life strategies are just now being understood and tabulated. America is being changed dramatically and nobody knows this better than civil libertarians, communities of religious faith, pregnant women and the people who care about them.

Roger Buchanan